Ending two wars as best we can

Both Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu and Ukrainian President Zelensky are in the US, nominally for Senator Lindsey Graham’s funeral. At the same time, their wars with Iran and Russia respectively are beginning to intersect. Ukraine has attacked an Iranian ship allegedly carrying munitions to Russia across the Caspian Sea. Russia is at the same time providing Iran with intelligence, including targeting for US bases in the Middle East.

The question is: how should the US respond to this growing symbiosis between Iran and Russia?

Ukraine first

I think Evelyn Farkas had it right on NPR this morning (the relevant remarks are at the end):

Washington should prioritize helping Ukraine achieve something like victory. That would weaken Russia for sure, as she suggests. But I’m not sure is correct that it would weaken Iran much. Moscow could continue to provide it with targeting data. It is not clear whether Tehran is getting anything else that it really needs from Russia.

The reason for prioritizing Ukraine is different. It is a winnable war. Ukraine is already well on the way. It has chased the Russians from the Black and Azov Seas, partially isolated Crimea and put it under siege, and battered Russian energy and commercial infrastructure. President Putin is cracking down on domestic dissent, considering a personnel mobilization that he has spent years trying to avoid, and importing more North Korean troops to fight in Ukraine.

Iran

The Iran war is not winnable. Tehran has demonstrated that it can block traffic through the strait of Hormuz despite air attacks from Israel and the US. A ground invasion would be foolhardy and counterproductive, driving up oil prices. Iranian threats, backed up occasionally by a drone or two, suffice to prevent many ships from even trying to pass the strait.

The sooner the US can get a ceasefire implemented with Iran, the better. The world economy has held up well so far, but oil stocks are bottoming out. The current pause in fighting is providing some relief to around $80 per barrel, but renewed strikes (or a ground invasion) will quickly force oil prices over $100 per barrel. That in turn will push gasoline prices toward or above $5 per gallon. The mid-term election is less than 100 days away.

The impacts of tolling

A serious ceasefire will require at least tacit US agreement to Iranian tolling of ships passing the strait. The 1982 Law of the Sea Convention permits charging for services rendered like security and navigation. The US has not signed but says it abides by that treaty’s provisions on international straits. It permits “transit passage” (on, over, and under the sea) even in wartime. So getting Iran, which has objected to transit passage, to use the 1982 Convention would be a small win, even if the tolling is a big loss.

US consumers will not pay the tolls. Oil is traded at world market prices, with adjustments for quality and transport costs. So it will be Gulf producers who pay price hike caused by the tolls. They won’t like it, but it will encourage them to do what they should already have done: build greater pipeline capacity to export oil without going through the strait of Hormuz or the Bab al Mandeb.

End the wars

These two wars have seriously damaged US standing. They have demonstrated that

1. American military capacity is less impressive than its reputation.
2. US support for friends and allies is shaky.
3. American diplomacy is weak.

Rebuilding the US military and diplomacy will take time and money. The sooner it starts, the better.